02:35The primary focus was on evaluating and adjusting the compensation plan to ensure fairness and competitiveness in the market. The board scrutinized various employee pay rates, particularly highlighting discrepancies in the lower grades and the need for a structured approach to manage salary steps. Initial discussions revealed that many employees in grades one, two, and three were underfunded relative to their current salaries. This prompted a series of tests to explore alternative compensation structures, such as modifying the grade spread and increasing the percentage differences between grades.

09:48One significant topic was the legality and implications of implementing different COLA percentages for various employee classes. The board noted that a fixed percentage COLA might not adequately address existing salary disparities, as a 4% increase on lower salaries does not equate to the same financial impact as on higher salaries. A sliding scale was suggested as a potential remedy but was deemed legally constrained.

13:17Market rates for specific roles, particularly those difficult to fill, such as treasurer and water department positions, were also considered essential factors in the compensation discussion. The board recognized the importance of aligning salaries with market values to retain talent and fill vacancies effectively. However, discrepancies between hypothetical starting salaries and those of existing employees with years of service created challenges in establishing a fair comparison.

21:25The board also examined how the proposed changes would affect employees with extensive experience, as current salary levels appeared misaligned with years of service. For example, an employee at grade five with significant experience was noted to be earning less than expected. This led to discussions about adopting a new method of assigning steps that reflect actual years of service in specific roles rather than overall years employed.

53:10Additionally, the meeting highlighted the plight of certain employees, such as library staff, who were underpaid relative to their experience and roles. Specific cases, such as Kimber and Carol from the library, were raised, with suggestions to adjust their steps to ensure equitable compensation. The duality in pay rates for overlapping roles, such as the administrative assistant to the assistant town clerk, was another point of concern, emphasizing the need for clearer compensation structures.

01:01:41Amidst these discussions, the board considered the broader budgetary implications of the proposed salary adjustments. The projected budget increase of approximately 21% raised eyebrows, with some positions experiencing over 50% increases due to the new compensation table. This prompted suggestions to explore potential savings, such as reducing the COLA from 4% to 3%, to mitigate the overall budget impact.

01:05:11The board also deliberated on the compensation for part-time and volunteer positions, such as stipends for the fire and police departments. Simplifying stipends to incorporate COLA adjustments was suggested as a means to streamline budgeting and avoid excessive tracking of steps for volunteer roles. Specific attention was given to Lynn, the emergency management director, whose stipend was lower than her counterparts, leading to a proposal to increase it to $2,500.